The regime is working hard to keep the news about the protest movment in Iran from being reported.

From jamming satellite broadcasts, to prohibiting news reporters from covering any demonstrations to shutting down all cell phones and even hiring foreign security to control the population, the regime is doing everything in its power to keep the popular movement from expressing its demand for an end of the regime.

These efforts by the regime, while successful in the short term, do not resolve the fundamental reasons why this regime is crumbling from within.

Iran is a country ready for a regime change. If you follow this thread you will witness, I believe, the transformation of a nation. This daily thread provides a central place where those interested in the events in Iran can find the best news and commentary.

Please continue to join us here, post your news stories and comments to this thread.

Double Standards and Deception: How the Left Treats Iran and the Middle East

Defense & Foreign Affairs Strategic Policy Anaysis/Opinion.

By Elio Bonazzi

In an article that appeared in the New York Post, in early March 2003, prior to the Coalition war on Iraq, Iranian-born journalist Amir Taheri denounced what he felt were the deeply hypocritical position of the peace movement, which had, in the build-up to the 2003 US-led war against Iraqi Pres. Saddam Hussein, organized marches and rallies throughout 600 cities and 25 countries.

Stalin founded this peace movement movement in 1946, when the USSR was in a distinctly weak position; he was trying to consolidate the newly conquered empire in Eastern Europe without nuclear weapons to counter the military predominance of the West. Pablo Picasso designed the emblem of the movement, the famous dove, and world-renowned poets such as French Paul Eluard and Chilean Pablo Neruda composed odes inspired by Stalin. The goal of the movement was to extend the influence of the various communist parties over the more moderate center-left political formations, to push the Kremlins agenda in the West with the support of forces which would have transcended the meager political weight of the various communist parties operating in what was then described as the free world. The symbol was a dove, rather than hammer and sickle; the emblem color was white, rather than red. But the International Section of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), operating behind the scenes in Moscow, orchestrated the peace movement to fulfill their goals.

In the course of its existence, the peace movement never betrayed its origins.

In his article, Mr Taheri reminds us that the movement was not opposed to all wars indiscriminately, but only to those that threatened the Soviet empire. The peaceniks (which is the appellation by which Mr Taheri refers to them) were comfortable with the Soviet annexation of 15 percent of Finlands territory and the Baltic States, and did not demur when the Soviet tanks entered Budapest and Prague. But when the US led a coalition under a UN mandate to prevent North Korean communists from conquering South Korea, the peace movement was up in arms, denouncing the imperialist ambitions of the US. Peaceniks reached their peak during the Vietnam War. And once again they were silent when the USSR invaded Afghanistan, but became very vocal about the deployment of the Pershing theater-strategic surface-to-surface missiles in Europe in the years which followed that very invasion. The missiles were a response to the Soviet deployment of entire batteries of SS-20 ballistic missiles aimed at European capitals. But the peaceniks never asked for the dismantling of the SS-20s; their protest was only aimed at impeding the deployment of the Pershing SSMs.

While the peace movement is probably the most evident example of double standards, tolerated and even encouraged by the left, the recent events which have occurred in Iran and the repercussion which those events had in the Western world are a revival of the hypocrisy and duplicity by those who theoretically should be staunch supporters of democracy and freedom for the Iranian people.

The Islamic Republic of Iran is an extreme-right theocracy, which has increasingly lost consensus even among the clergy. It oppresses the large majority of Iranians, perpetrating what by accepted international standards would be described as crimes against humanity on a daily basis. Women are stoned to death, people [especially the young] are tortured and executed in public without trial, tens of thousands of political prisoners populate highly objectionable prisons; the oppressors must resort to Muslim foreigners for help in anti-riot policing, enlisting Palestinians, Afghani Talibans and even Syrians arriving straight from Damascus to Tehran via camouflaged chartered flights, because Iranian police will no longer beat fellow compatriots during demonstrations.

It is clear that Iranians want a secular, representative government ; anything short of that is not acceptable. Surprisingly, both liberals and left wing radicals have, up until now shown little or no support for a secular democracy in Iran. It is difficult to argue that the struggle for a secular democracy in Iran is not progressive. After all, the Iranian opposition forces are trying to defeat religious obscurantism, which is definitely not a left-wing ideological asset; they propose a modern democracy instead, which is certainly more in line with left-wing rhetoric.

Historically, whenever a brutal dictatorship teetered on the edge of collapse, left-wing movements and media worldwide stood up in support of the freedom fighters. For instance, the autocracy in Nicaragua which lasted until July 1979 and proceeded the fall of the Pres. Anastasio Somoza had liberal media worldwide in a campaign which completely discredited Somozas Administration. The turning point was the assassination of journalist Bill Stewart by a soldier of the regular Nicaraguan Army, captured on the video camera of a fellow journalist and promptly distributed throughout the world.

Something similar has recently happened in Iran. A Canadian-Iranian photojournalist, Zahra Ziba Kazemi, was raped and murdered (at the instigation of Tehran prosecutor Saeed Mortezavi) in June 2003 while detained after being arrested for filming anti-Government riots outside the political prison of Evin in Tehran. After an initial pathetic attempt to cover up this assassination, [the Islamic Republic officials injected her body with rapid decomposing chemicals and burying her hastily] essentially refusing to return her body to Canada, in spite of an official request made by her family and demand by the Canadian Government. The murder of Ms Kazemi, however, did not provoke the same amount of public outrage which forced Nicaraguan Pres. Somoza to step down.

For weeks during the month of June 2003 and on the occasion of the July 9, 2003, anniversary of the 1999 University protests in Iran, the opposition movement inside Iran challenged the authority of the Administration, marching and rallying, chanting anti-Government slogans, defying the guns and death squads of the various mullahs in key posts. As a result, thousands of political activists, students, and others, were rounded up and packed into prisons, subjected to torture, and in some cases murdered.

It is instructive to compare and contrast the articles about Nicaragua that appeared in liberal newspapers in 1979 and the articles about Iran today. In 1979 not a single liberal journalist strove to be neutral. From the perspective of the political left, there was no doubt: Somoza and his Government had to go.

The situation is totally different today. If it is to succeed, the growing opposition movement inside Iran needs tangible support from the West. Freedom fighters need laptops, fax machines and cellular phones to organize the uprising. If the Iranian opposition is to succeed, it also needs support from international media. But, significantly, that is not happening. The basic ingredients of the political situation in Iran  a growing opposition movement fighting against a leadership which oppresses the vast majority of the population  would normally be considered to be the perfect ingredients for a left-wing recipe to galvanize the masses in the name of freedom and democracy. It worked for Nicaragua, at the end of the 1970s; it worked for Poland and Solidarnosc in the 1980s. The question for analysts today is why the same recipe has failed to take hold in Iran.

Mainstream US liberal media barely reported on the Iranian uprising which occurred at the end of June and beginning of July 2003. Instead of praising the opposition demonstrators who literally risked their lives, soon after the end of the uprising, The New York Times, which in spite of recent scandals still remains one of the most prestigious national newspapers, published an Op-Ed by Mr Reza Aslan, a visiting professor of Islamic Studies at the University of Iowa.

In that article, Mr Aslan argued that the Iranian opposition was fighting for a religious democracy, not secularism, and religion must play a rôle in the country. Mr Aslan completely misrepresented the reality of Iran, and could not be further from the truth. The New York Times, by publishing that article, sided with those who sought to maintain the status quo in Iran. The most prominent Shiite scholars, ayatollahs like Taheri and Montazeri, have distanced themselves from the political clergy (Khamnei and Rafsjani), openly criticizing the very concept of Islamic Republic. Hossein Khomeini, himself an ayatollah and the grandchild of the Islamic revolutions very leader, recently joined Taheri and Montazeri, criticizing religious interference in State matters, in a significant blow to the theocratic establishment. Mr Khomeini left Iran, and is now in Najaf, Iraq, which has once again become the most prominent Shiite theological center, relegating the Iranian holy city of Qom to a secondary rôle. Coalition forces in Iraq recently discovered a plot to assassinate Hossein Khomeini organized by the Shiite extremists sent by Irans Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei and former Pres. Rafsanjanis assassination teams.

Taheri, Montazeri and Khomeini the younger understand that Islam today is losing consensus in Iran and that the harshness of the Islamic revolution backfired. As a result, it is no longer appealing to Iranian youth; they now respond with either religious apathy or by embracing Zoroastrianism [the ancient religion of Iran, before Persians were forced to convert to Islam by the Arab invaders].

The peace movement taught us that only wars which were threatening the Soviet Union were worth protesting. Contemporary liberals would like to sell us a similar concept: siding with the oppressed freedom fighters against the brutal oppressors is not always politically correct. In the case of Iran, for example, the toppling of the mullahs could potentially benefit the US Bush Administration, simplifying the process of stabilization in Iraq, and extending US and Israeli influence in the Middle East. The perceived Bush-Sharon axis would come out undoubtedly stronger, after HizbAllah and HAMAS were left without their primary source of financial and logistic support, the Iranian clerics.

It is easy to understand why it is in the interest of the left to deliberately downplay the growing opposition movement in Iran. Apart from the more evident reason explained above, as far as Iran is concerned, the left still has a few skeletons in its closet, and must come to terms with past mistakes and faulty assessments.

To begin with, the left significantly contributed to the creation of the Islamic Republic, when US President Jimmy Carter deliberately destroyed the Shah, who had been a staunch ally of the US for 27 years. In the Shahs White House visit of November 1977, Jimmy Carter and his aides  who demanded radical changes in the way the internal affairs of Iran were conducted  met the Shah with open hostility. They asked the Shah to institute the right of free assembly, at a time when the Soviet Union was stepping up a campaign of propaganda, espionage and even sabotage inside Iran, and Islamic fundamentalists where teaming up with the Iranian Communist Tudeh party to overthrow the Government.

Nureddin Klanuri, head of the Tudeh Party, who was living in exile in East Berlin, officially sanctioned the party line in support for Khomeini:

The Tudeh Party approves Ayatollah Khomeini's initiative in creating the Islamic Revolutionary Council. The ayatollahs program coincides with that of the Tudeh Party.

Furthermore, Sadegh Ghotbzadeh, a key figure in Khomenis entourage, was known for his strong connections with Soviet and Eastern European intelligence.

The Shah was left with little room for maneuver; he had to succumb to the blackmail of the Carter Administration and release political prisoners, ending military tribunals and granting rights of assembly in order not to lose vital US military supply and training. But the mechanism designed by Carter to provoke an escalation of the opposition to the Shah was already in motion. In addition to the support of the Tudeh party and Eastern intelligence, Khomeini could also count on US leftist radicals like Ramsey Clark, who had served as Attorney-General in the Lyndon B. Johnson Administration. Mr Clark went to Tehran and to Paris, to visit Khomeini. Upon his return to the US, he played a behind-the-scenes rôle to influence prominent senators and congressmen not to allow the US military to back the Shah in case of popular upraising against the Peacock throne.

Mr Clark is today still proud of his crusade of 1979. In a recent interview he talked of overthrowing the Shah as the accomplishment of his lifetime, quoting overly exaggerated numbers of supposed Shahs victims as the moral justification for his actions. The smear campaign orchestrated by left media while the Shah was still on his throne, and which continued well after his fall, depicted the Shah as a mass murderer, responsible for the killing of 60,000 people, who died between 1963 and 1979. That number was fabricated by Khomeini, and never verified, not even by Western media, which took for granted the official truth of the newly installed Islamic Administration.

Only recently a respected historian, Emad al-Din Baghi, who had access to the files of the so-called Martyrs Foundation, told the truth about the real number of Shahs victims. For years, The Martyrs Foundation collected the names of the victims of the revolution against the Shah, classifying them by age, sex, education, etc. The findings where never disclosed by the Islamic Republic, in order not to contradict the official number established by decree by Khomeini. The statistical breakdown of victims covering the period from 1963 to 1979 adds up to a figure of 3,164. Emad al-Din Baghi left the Martyrs Foundation to write books about his findings. According to his historically accurate account, the worst moment of the uprising against the Shah, culminated in the massacre at Jaleh Square, gave the revolutionaries the chance to grossly inflate the number of victims, from 88 to initially 3,000, which later became 4,000. Western media never bothered to verify the accuracy of the numbers, based on rumors and anti-Shah hysteria, and helped perpetuate the inflated figures.

Not only the left contributed to the creation of the Islamic Republic; in more recent years, during the US Clinton Administration, the media and left-wing politicians helped the Islamic Republic propaganda, repeating and magnifying the Big Lie about Iran and its Reformist Leaders. Big Lie is a term originally coined to describe a characteristic form of nazi (and later Soviet) propaganda. The essence of the Big Lie propaganda technique is that if one repeats the lie often enough over enough channels, people will soak it up deep into their pores and come to believe it as something of common knowledge or fact.

In this case, the Big Lie consisted of portraying current Iranian Pres. Hojjat ol-Eslam (Ali) Mohammad Khatami-Ardakani and his Government as a genuine force capable of reforming the Islamic Republic from within, expanding democracy and meeting the requests of Iranians who voted for change against hard-line clerics in 1997. The Big Lie remained credible for a short time, and even opposition forces of the Iranian diaspora initially credited Mr Khatami with good intentions. But soon after the electoral victory of May 1997, it appeared evident that Khatami was a mere façade figure, whose task was to restore an image of respectability, which the Islamic Republic had lost when Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsajani, the former President, had ordered the elimination of anti-Islamic Republic activists [carried out by Iranian killers] in Berlin. After several European countries recalled their ambassadors from Tehran to protest against the assassinations perpetrated on European soil and threatened to reconsider business deals with Iran, the clerical apparatus in charge of the Islamic Republic decided to give itself a new and more presentable look.

The Iranian society had already sent strong signals of deep disaffection towards Islamic rule. It was easy to maneuver the elections; spiritual leader Ali Khamenei handpicked a fossilized, ultra-conservative mullah, Nategheh-Nouri, the Speaker of Parliament (Majlis), as the candidate of the establishment, knowing full well that the electorate would have voted for the alternative candidate.

But what kind of alternative was Khatami? One should not forget that democratic elections are in reality nothing more than a farce in Iran. Opposition parties that do not pledge their allegiance to the Islamic regime are banned. And as if that is not enough, the all-powerful Council of Guardians subjects all candidates to a close examination of their loyalty to the system. The latter represents the will of God, while the Parliament (Majlis) represents the will of the People. Needless to say, the will of God always prevails over the will of the people. The Spiritual Leader Ali Khamenei, who presides the Council of Guardians, is, to all intents, an absolute monarch. Of the initial 240 candidates who wanted to run for the May 1997 election, the Council of Guardians chose four who were deemed sufficiently Islamic to run. All women candidate were filtered out, leaving Khatami, carefully screened by the establishment, as the only reasonable choice. With his image of well-spoken, clean-shaven mullah capable of debating without losing his temper, Khatami was the perfect choice to rebuild the shattered image of Iran, especially in the eyes of the European powers.

The fictitious contraposition between conservatives and reformists and the electoral victory of the latter was the PR stunt that allowed the Europeans, anxious to continue usurping cheap oil and gas from Iran, to feel morally justified when they restored diplomatic and business relations with the Islamic Republic. The Western media on both sides of the Atlantic did the rest, generating a false sense of confidence in the good guys, the reformists, who, in spite of all the obstacles erected by the conservatives, would have eventually succeeded in fulfilling the needs and the democratic aspirations of Iranians. In all fairness, it has to be said that all mainstream media, irrespective of political leaning, initially praised Khatamis election, to the extent of giving him the nickname of Ayatollah Gorbachev. The mullahs benefited from the newly-found line of political credit by cracking down on internal opposition with renewed vigor. A few months after Khatamis landslide victory, journalists and intellectuals were killed in what went down the annals of history as the chain murders. In addition, real opposition magazines and newspapers were banned and forcibly closed down.

In spite of the repression of internal dissent, Khatami was invited by the major European powers for State visits. He went to Italy in March 1999, where he delivered a speech to the Parliament, to France in October 1999, where he was welcomed by Pres. Chirac at the Elysée Palace, and to Germany in July 2000, where he met federal Chancellor Gerhard Schröder and Foreign Minister Joseph Fischer.

The Big Lie represented a perfect win-win situation for Iranian officials and European powers. It legitimized the Islamic Republic and its crackdown of the opposition, while justifying the Europeans in their renewed business interests with Iran, because, as German Foreign Minister Fisher claimed: any opposition to Khatami only benefits his conservative opponents. Khatami visited Germany exactly one year after the July 1999 student protests, during which security forces and Islamic militia murdered several young people. Khatami explicitly supported the repression of the protest, and in spite of receiving thousands of petitions; he did not intervene to stop the tortures and the arrests if students who were then sentenced to death after mock trials. But that was not enough to defeat the Big Lie; the sad reality of Iran was not convenient for liberal media and European politicians, anxious to clear the way to lucrative business deals with Iran.

The latest elections held in Iran on February 2003 also showed that the Emperor had no clothes; in Tehran only 10 percent of voters cast their votes, in other parts of the country the percentage of voters was higher, but in average no more than 25 percent. That sent Iranian authorities and the world a strong message of the distaste the Iranian public felt towards Islamic rule. Initially, only the Council of Guardians was labeled the unelected few; today the same can be said about the entire ruling class.

US non-liberal mainstream media finally woke up and started questioning the Big Lie, reporting on the June/July 2003 uprisings, realizing that Iran needed a secular democracy and not the false promises of a better future by a powerless mullah. In several occasions, however, liberal media still described the Iranian situation in terms of internal fighting between reformists and conservatives, demanding that the US State Department open a dialogue with reformist forces to reach a compromise on the Iranian interference in Iraq and the nuclear facility being built in central Iran.

Left-wing radical fringes recently gave birth to a Committee called the International Committee for Transition to Democracy in Iran. Radical celebrities like Noam Chomsky, Costa Gavras and the Nobel Laureate Jose Saramago were among the founders of the committee, which mixes anti-US and anti-Imperialist rhetoric with legitimate requests for a genuine democratization in Iran. It is now time for the more moderate mainstream left to start the long overdue process of self-criticism of past mistakes, and to recognize that the only reasonable political position is to side with the growing opposition movement that wants to overthrow the mullahs to create a secular democracy in Iran. The left opposed the war in Iraq using morally charged messages like no blood for oil. In order not to lose its credibility, the left can no longer ignore the legitimate aspiration of Iranians for a secular democracy. If the left insists on perpetuating its mistakes as far as Iran is concerned [trading long term benefits for myopic short term anti-Bush gains], it will be caught, once again, on the wrong side of history. It is not too late for the left to recognize its mistakes and to rectify its position on Iran, after a factual and honest debate; but that must begin now.

The Author:

Elio Bonazzi is an Italian-born political scientist and IT professional, with extensive experience covering Iranian issues.

TEHRAN - With suspense building over whether Iran will allow snap inspections of its nuclear sites, a foreign ministry spokesman said Monday that there is still a week until the UN nuclear watchdog meets to discuss the matter and that people should "wait and see" what Tehran will do.

"We have a week until September 8," when the International Atomic Energy Agency meets in Vienna, said Hamid-Reza Assefi. "So wait and see whether Iran does or does not" sign an additional protocol to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

An IAEA report on Iran will be presented to the agency's board of governors in Vienna. Were Iran to be found in breach of its commitments the matter could be referred to the UN Security Council.

Iran is being pressed to sign the protocol by the United States and other parties, who suspect that it is secretly developing a nuclear weapons program. Tehran flatly denies that.

Even during the depths of the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union often worked together to halt the spread of nuclear weapons to new countries. Now, both countries are dealing with the realization that Iran's nuclear program is more advanced than previously thought and may be aimed directly at acquiring nuclear weapons in the next few years.

Unfortunately, the approaches being pursued by both countries will do nothing to slow Iran's ability to produce nuclear weapons, and a new approach and better coordination is desperately needed before it is too late.

For the better part of a decade, U.S. officials pressured Russia to stop its support for the Bushehr nuclear reactor project in Iran. The United States argued that the power plant was a front for Iran to acquire weapons-related technology, a charge that Russian rejected. It now appears that both sides may have been wrong.

Counter to U.S. projections, Iran appears to have used Pakistan and other third parties to develop a uranium enrichment technology based on centrifuges, instead of relying on covert acquisitions of Russian technology. This does not mean, however, that Russian experts or companies have not been involved in this program without the Kremlin's knowledge or permission -- only that Russia appears not to be the primary source of Iran's newfound capabilities. Yet Russia also ignored clear signs that Iran was interested in much more than a peaceful nuclear power program. Its willingness to engage in nuclear commerce with Iran, while financially beneficial, is now coming back to negatively effect Russia's security.

To remedy the situation, the two countries have adopted similarly flawed approaches. Russian officials are working with Iran to ensure that any fuel used in the reactor at Bushehr -- fuel that when reprocessed could produce hundreds of nuclear weapons worth of plutonium -- is returned to Russia. For its part, with Russian support, the United States is pushing Iran to join the IAEA's enhanced inspection agreement, which will give the agency broader inspection and monitoring rights in Iran.

While both of these initiatives are helpful, they will do absolutely nothing to head off the main challenge posed by Iran's growing nuclear program -- Tehran's construction of advanced centrifuge enrichment facilities that could produce enough weapons-grade uranium for 20 weapons per year by the end of the decade. Iran has stated that it is developing the means to produce its own enriched uranium fuel for the Bushehr reactors out of concern that the United States will convince Russia to cut off its fuel supply.

Under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, to which Iran is a party, states are entitled to engage in all manner of peaceful nuclear development as long as they accept international inspections. This provision, however, allows states to use the cover of the treaty to acquire the very means to produce a formidable nuclear arsenal, and then later withdraw from the pact and use the material for nuclear weapons. At the heart of international concerns is the risk that Iran will follow just this scenario to the detriment of regional and even global security.

To head off this eventuality, the United States and Russia should reach quick agreement on a new strategy that would not only head off Iran's nuclear weapons potential, but address the underlying flaw in the NPT system. At a minimum, Russia should offer to guarantee -- with explicit U.S. endorsement -- Iran's supply of fuel for the Bushehr reactor as long as Iran abandons its indigenous uranium enrichment and plutonium production programs. This offer would give Iran a clear choice -- a reliable foreign source of nuclear energy or an internal nuclear program with weapons potential. The choice that Iran makes would help show the international community Iran's true intentions.

To many, it is already clear that at a minimum, Iran is seeking the option of producing nuclear weapons through its own independent nuclear program. Given its history of conflict with Iraq -- a state by no means guaranteed of a peaceful and stable future -- as well as the perceived threats from Israel's and America's nuclear arsenals, Iran's position is understandable in some circles. But this nuclear option would only serve to increase the desire of other countries, including Saudi Arabia, Syria and even a future independent Iraq, to acquire their own nuclear options, to say nothing of the steps Israel might take before Iran's became a reality.

Thus, in addition to the offer to guarantee Iran's supply of low enriched uranium fuel for its nuclear reactor, the United States and Russia should revisit the idea of establishing a clear policy that nuclear weapons will not be used to threaten states that do not have nuclear weapons or an active nuclear program. Amazingly, since the end of the Cold War, both the United States and Russia have increased the circumstances under which they would be willing to use or threaten use of nuclear weapons. It is time the two countries recognize that such a policy has negative implications that could drive states to acquire nuclear weapons.

Russia and America have an important legacy of preventing proliferation of which they should be proud. It is a legacy that should be revived and focused on the core proliferation threats in Iran and elsewhere before the nuclear confrontation of the Cold War is replaced by a broader nuclear competition the two states will not find as easy to control.

Jon B. Wolfsthal, deputy director of the Nonproliferation Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, contributed this comment to The Moscow Times.

KARACHI - Pakistan is willing to let a proposed Iran-India natural-gas pipeline use its territory, a govenment statement said Monday.

A feasibility study for the project has been conducted by Australia-based resources conglomerate BHP Billiton Ltd .

Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf told Philip Aiken, president of BHP Billiton Petroleum, that Pakistan was committed to facilitating the project by providing territory, the statement said.

According to the statement, Aiken said BHP has completed the technical feasibility study for the project, and has submitted it to the Iranian government, which is in talks with New Delhi about the project.

India has in the past has refused to take part in any energy pipeline involving Pakistan because of security concerns.

Military tensions, which brought the two countries to the brink of war last summer, have eased in recent months, but formal peace talks have yet to begin.

The statement also quoted BHP's Aiken as saying the company has completed phase one of the Zamzama Gas Development program four months ahead of schedule. The first phase of the project, which is situated in the south of Pakistan, cost $150 million.

The project will produce 320 million cubic feet a day in the first phase, while the output will rise to 500mcf a day in phase two.

Aitkin expressed BHP's keen interest in making further investment in Pakistan's oil and gas sector, the statement said.

VENICE, Italy - Iranian officials have blocked a director from appearing at the Venice Film Festival to promote his movie about a Muslim boy who falls in love with a Jewish girl, the producer said Monday.

Abolfazl Jalili was to appear Monday with his film "Abjad," or "The First Letter." But producer Emmanuel Benbihy said the director has been unable to get permission for the trip.

Iran has called on the United Nations to avoid international pressure to stage a crackdown over its nuclear programme. An official for the country said it believed that goodwill from all parties could resolve the issue. Iran has said it is ready to negotiate on signing the so-called Additional Protocol that would allow snap inspections of its nuclear facilities. The United States says those facilities are part of a nuclear weapons programme. Iran strongly denies the charge. The UN watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), has said in a confidential report that Iran had improved co-operation. But it felt there were still questions about weapons-grade uranium found at a site in Iran. Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said: "Some countries are about to exert pressure and the agency (IAEA) should not let it happen. "If the other side shows goodwill and if the other side has honesty, I don't think it is an issue that cannot be solved." He said Iran had already shown goodwill by allowing the IAEA to take samples and by announcing it was ready to start negotiations on the protocol. But he said ambiguities still had to be cleared up. European Union officials have said Iran should agree to more checks if it wants to maintain good ties with the 15-nation bloc, a key Iranian trading partner. US officials have said Washington wants the issue of Iran's nuclear program sent to the UN Security Council. Iran has said it wants clarifications about some sovereignty aspects in the protocol, a move analysts have said could create delays in signing up to more intrusive checks. The country says its nuclear program is purely civilian and that nuclear facilities are needed to meet booming demand for electricity so it can keep the country's massive oil and gas reserves for exports.

Kuwait City, Sept 2, IRNA -- Kuwait`s Prime Minister Sheikh Sabah al-Ahmad said here on Monday in a meeting with Iran`s Minister of Foreign Affairs Kamal Kharrazi that "Kuwait is sure Iran`s role in Iraq and the region is positive, as it has always been so."

Referring to the Friday martyrdom of Ayatollah Seyed Mohammad Baqer Hakim in Holy city of Najaf, Sheikh Sabah said, "That event was such a painful one, conducted by criminal hands."

He said, "We believe the Iraqi people should be trusted with ruling in their own country, so that they could also properly deal with security there and end the current chaotic conditions."

Touching on bilateral relations, Sheikh Sabah said, "Many memorandam of understanding are signed between the two countries, and we now need to tackle ways for thorough and proper implementation of them."

Referring to Kuwaiti merchants` will to make investments in Iran, and through Iran in Central Asian republics, he said, "There is potentially a huge amount in this country, that needs to be invested abroad, and we seek Iran`s assistance in that regard."

During the meeting, the Islamic Republic`s foreign minister attributed the prevailing tension in Iraq, and the Iraqi people`s dissatisfaction with the ongoing process to "False understanding of the complicated situation of Iraq, imposing a unilateral policy there and not heeding the basic rules of democracy and the Iraqi people`s righteous demands from the occupiers."

Stressing on the need for "constructive cooperation by Iraq`s neighbors", Kharrazi said, "Iran and Kuwait`s cooperation can pave the way for taking the lead by a government that will be trusted by the Iraqi nation in that country."

Evaluating his talks with the Kuwaiti officials as "fruitful and constructive" he said, "Iran and Kuwait have taken long strides towards signing various memoranda of understanding, but both sides should also display the needed will and pave the path for their thorough and full implementation."

The Iranian foreign minister evaluated the Kuwaiti prime minister`s role in improvement of bilateral ties as "positive", adding, "The strong will, and constant consultations of the two sides` top officials will pave the way for taking a long stride towards full implementation of the signed MoUs, as well as Iran and Kuwait`s shared investments in fields of mutual interest."

The Iranian foreign minister arrived Kuwait on Monday morning atop a diplomatic delegation, and was received by his Kuwaiti counterpart Sheikh Muhammad as-Sabah and a number of Iranian and Kuwaiti officials.

The talk of regime change in Iran that now fills the air in Washington is not new. Although very few Americans are aware of it, August of this year marked the 50th anniversary of a vital, yet little-known chapter in American foreign policy - a military coup against the elected leaders of Iran orchestrated by the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

GENEVA, Sept. 2  A team of special United Nations investigators urged Iran on Tuesday to speed reform of its judicial system by transferring power from revolutionary and clerical courts to ordinary tribunals.

Gray-bearded and almost toothless, Khan Kaka lives in a mud house with a weather-beaten pine door beside a little plot of corn and vegetables. But to his neighbors in this corner of Afghanistan's remote Kunar province, the gangling, tobacco-chewing old man is one of the most respected figures in the Pech River valley.

IT'S ALL ABOUT connections: since 1996 Kaka's son-in-law, an Algerian named Abu Hamza al Jazeeri, has been a special bodyguard to the man Kaka calls loar sheik--"big chief"--Osama bin Laden.

Every two months or so, al Jazeeri comes down from the mountains to visit his wife and three sons, who live with Kaka. "He appears and disappears like lightning," Kaka says. "I never know when he's coming or going." The old man and his neighbors listen eagerly to the latest news from the Qaeda leader's hideout. On a visit in January al Jazeeri reported that one of bin Laden's daughters-in-law had recently died in childbirth, and that bin Laden spoke at her funeral, blaming America for her death. Only a few dozen mourners could attend, not the thousands who would ordinarily pay their last respects. Bin Laden blamed America for that, too. "I had enough riches to enjoy myself like an Arab sheik," bin Laden said, according to al Jazeeri's account. "But I decided to fight against those infidel forces that want to sever us from our Islamic roots. For that cause, Arabs, Taliban and my family have been martyred." Kaka and his neighbors have memorized the eulogy. Asked where bin Laden is now, Kaka grins and waves without a word toward the 12,000-foot peaks surrounding the valley: up there.

No one seems to have a better answer. Two years after the September 11 attacks, the world's Most Wanted terrorist remains free. "We don't know where he is," says U.S. Army Col. Rodney Davis, spokesman for America's forces in Afghanistan. "And frankly, it's not about him. We'll continue to focus on killing, capturing and denying sanctuary to any anti-Coalition forces, whether they are influenced by bin Laden or not." Some U.S. officials speculate that life on the run has made it impossible for bin Laden to communicate with his followers, effectively turning him into a figurehead. "Bin Laden's operational role is not as important as it was to Al Qaeda and the Taliban," says a senior U.S. diplomat in Kabul. "But symbolically he is still very important."

He's more than that, according to senior Taliban officials contacted by NEWSWEEK in Pakistan and Afghanistan. They say bin Laden remains directly engaged as a strategist and financier for Al Qaeda, the Taliban and related groups. In April, shortly after the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, the Qaeda leader convened the biggest terror summit since September 11 at a mountain stronghold in Afghanistan. The participants included three top-ranking representatives from the Taliban, several senior Qaeda operatives and leaders from radical Islamic groups in Chechnya and Uzbekistan, according to a former Taliban deputy foreign minister. He got the details from a Taliban colleague who was there. Bin Laden, in a fiery mood, appointed one of his most trusted lieutenants, Saif al-Adil, to be Al Qaeda's chief of operations in Iraq. The leader handed the Egyptian-born al-Adel a letter of introduction, asking all religious leaders, businessmen and mujahedin to give him any support possible. Al-Adel left Afghanistan immediately. A few weeks later he was reported to be in neighboring Iran, where he is said to be under house arrest. The Taliban official nevertheless insists, contrary to American intelligence assessments, that al-Adel made it to Iraq and is organizing anti-U.S. operations.

At the same meeting bin Laden said he was working on "serious projects," another ranking Taliban source tells NEWSWEEK. "His priority is to use biological weapons," says the source, who claims that Al Qaeda already has such weapons. The question is only how to transport and launch them, he asserts. The source insists he doesn't know any further details but brags: "Osama's next step will be unbelievable." The plan was reportedly delayed and revised after the March capture of Al Qaeda's operations chief, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, in Rawalpindi, Pakistan. U.S. intelligence officials say no one disputes bin Laden's interest in germ warfare. Nevertheless, they argue, his main priority is to kill Americans by any means readily at hand--and most bioweapons are harder to get and use than many of the alternatives.

No one but bin Laden himself knows exactly what he's planning. So where is he? "Up there," says Pashtun Momand, the police major in charge of Kunar province's counterterrorism office. He's pointing at the thickly forested mountains east of the tiny provincial capital. A few people deny that bin Laden is living there. The province's governor, Said Fazel Akbar, insists that U.S. and Afghan forces are in hot pursuit. "He may come to Kunar," Akbar says, "but he can't stay for long." His opinion is not widely held.

Bin Laden seems to be in good health, according to both the former Taliban deputy foreign minister and an Afghan named Haroon, who claims to have visited the Qaeda leader in June. Three of bin Laden's sons are said to be with him, sworn to kill their father rather than let him be captured alive. Two of his wives are said to be living nearby in the mountains, but not with him; he visits them when security allows. Taliban sources say the Qaeda leader communicates with his friends and followers via handwritten letters and computer disks delivered by relays of messengers. Each carrier knows only where to find the next link in the chain. The system is slow, but it keeps the Americans from using electronic intercepts to find him.

Bin Laden could hardly ask for a better hiding place. Even some American officials agree that Kunar is a likely refuge. The sparsely populated province isn't big--less than two thirds the land area of Connecticut--but it offers more comfort and protection for bin Laden than any other part of Afghanistan. "There is no effective central government control in the mountains beyond the capital," says Kunar's chief of police, Col. Abdul Saffa Momand (no relation to the major). The mountain roads are almost impassable; his men have no radios, and their families barely survive on their monthly salary of $14--when the paychecks come at all. "A soldier on patrol at night is risking his life for nothing," the colonel says. "It's impossible to access the areas where Al Qaeda is hiding," he adds. "Even from a helicopter you only see mountains, rocks and trees." Unlike the desert ranges that are typical in Afghanistan, Kunar's mountains are covered with evergreens and shrubs, and the terrain is crisscrossed with smugglers' trails leading over the border into Pakistan.

Kunar's population is, likewise, congenial to bin Laden. In recent decades the province has become home to more than a thousand Arab men, many of whom--like bin Laden's bodyguard al Jazeeri--have intermarried with local Afghans, gaining strong family ties in the region. At the height of the war against the Soviets in the 1980s, the CIA effectively ceded Kunar to the Arab volunteers who were pouring in to join the mujahedin. "We preferred that they operate in their own fief, and out of our way," says Edmund McWilliams, a retired State Department officer and Congress's special representative to the mujahedin during the late 1980s. In the last two years the mujahedin veterans have been joined by hundreds of Qaeda members and supporters uprooted from other parts of Afghanistan.

Bin Laden and his followers are living in relative comfort, officials in Kunar believe. Some may be huddled in the caves that honeycomb the mountains, but Major Momand's intelligence sources say others live openly in stone and mud houses built against the steep slopes, hidden by the trees and underbrush. Many of the dwellings have been renovated in the last two years. The Arabs share the mountains with Afghan nomads whose flocks of sheep and goats graze there. Shali Khan, together with his wife and two children, tends a herd of 150 sheep and goats, and often encounters columns of heavily armed Arabs traveling on horseback or on foot. He says he's glad to see them. "These Arabs are good people fighting the jihad," says Khan, who takes evident pride in his pointed mustache, despite his tattered clothes and mended sandals. "They pay me well for my animals and milk."

Bin Laden apparently feels safe enough to receive visitors--with precautions. In May an Afghan named Haroon asked permission to see the Qaeda leader. The young man is active in the Taliban's anti-U.S. resistance, and he had guided bin Laden from the besieged cave complex at Tora Bora to safety in the Shahikot Valley during the U.S. bombing in late 2001 ("How Al Qaeda Slipped Away," Aug. 19, 2002). The month after sending his request, Haroon got a message directing him to a place in the mountains north of his home in Paktia province. From there, he was taken higher into the mountains by a series of guides, each one greeting the next with a whispered password. After three days he was turned over to a group of Arabs. They strip-searched him, placed his ring, watch and shoes in a bag and closely inspected the buttons on his shirt.

He spent the night barefoot in a nearby cave. At sunrise two armed Arabs, their faces covered by scarves, escorted him to an old mud-and-rock house and told him to sit there and wait. Haroon says he felt afraid. Suddenly bin Laden arrived and spoke in Arabic, slowly and quietly, urging the young man to keep fighting. "The deserts of Afghanistan are being irrigated with the blood of mujahedin," he told Haroon. "But the jihad will never dry up." After about 15 minutes the visit ended. "Please don't try to see me again," bin Laden said.

Will he ever be caught? For more than a year, Afghanistan has been sinking deeper into poverty, chaos and despair while the White House focuses on Iraq. Al Qaeda and the Taliban have not wasted the chance to regroup. Now the administration is promising to double Afghanistan's reconstruction aid to $1.8 billion. Even loyal Republicans fear that it's not nearly enough. They know what happened the last time America ignored Afghanistan. The anniversary is next week.

The Imam Musa Sadr Brigades on Monday accused officials in Iran and Hizbullah of concealing information pertaining to the murder of Imam Sadr and his two comrades.

According to a statement, the group, which is a hard-line wing of the Amal Movement, said they repeatedly asked Iranian and Hizbullah officials, secretly and publicly, to reveal the circumstances of the brutal crime and certain information that highlights the place of hiding of the imams corpse, adding that all their requests were in vain.

The group also said that hiding information makes Iran and Hizbullah accomplices in the crime, and we will make them pay for it.

Imam Musa Sadr, the founder of Amal, disappeared along with his two companions in 1978, during a visit to Libya....

Iranian prosecutors have dropped all charges against two Intelligence Ministry employees implicated in the death of a Montreal photojournalist, casting doubt on whether Tehran will find anyone criminally responsible for killing Zahra Kazemi.

Jafar Reshadati, Tehran's deputy prosecutor-general, threw out indictments issued on Aug. 25 against two women said to be complicit in the "semi-intentional murder" of Ms. Kazemi, 54, who died on July 10 after a long and violent interrogation by Iranian officials.

Mr. Reshadati said in a statement yesterday that investigations into the Iranian-born Canadian's death were incomplete "from the time of [Ms. Kazemi's] detention to the last opinion offered by the forensic medical committee [after her death]."

The prosecutor called for Judge Javad Esmaeili, who laid the initial charges, to reinvestigate the crime, but there was no date given for him to table his final report.

Bill Graham, Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs, said yesterday the withdrawal of the charges could be considered a positive development only if it leads to charges against those "directly implicated and responsible for Ms. Kazemi's death."

In a statement released in Toronto just before the Minister was to board a plane for Paris, Mr. Graham noted the "great skepticism" with which his office had viewed the now-dismissed charges, and said he would continue to press for an open investigation that punishes the proper people.

"Of course, I am not surprised they dropped the charges," said Ms. Kazemi's son, Stephan Hachemi of Montreal. "The arrests were just another diversion tactic by Iran, to make it seem like they were doing something."

While reports have differed on the occupations of those formerly charged -- they are said to be both health care workers and security agents -- no one has disputed they are junior employees who played only a partial role in Ms. Kazemi's interrogation.

Mr. Graham said last week Ottawa would not accept the theory that "two lower-level people would be responsible for Madame Kazemi's death without the orders of people from higher up."

Although he did not explicitly suggest a cover-up, Mr. Graham said Saeed Mortazavi, Tehran's powerful chief prosecutor, was "potentially implicated" in the murder.

However, a spokesman with the Iranian Foreign Ministry yesterday called Mr. Graham's comments "a little incomprehensible and slightly surprising," and said Iran was doing all it could to clear up the case.

Hamid-Reza Asefi told reporters in Tehran that Mr. Graham "should guard against exploiting this matter for a domestic audience and success at home."

Mr. Asefi noted that Tehran does not formally recognize Ms. Kazemi's dual citizenship and said "the Islamic republic will pursue this case until all aspects have been cleared up."

The Kazemi case has laid bare a wide rift between hardline Islamic elements in the Iranian judiciary system and reformist politicians led by Mohammad Khatami, the President. Hard-liners control Iran's police force, security agency and prosecutions office, which -- led by Mr. Mortazavi -- first said Ms. Kazemi died of a stroke.

A committee appointed by Mr. Khatami discredited that claim and found she had died of head injuries sustained while in custody. Ms. Kazemi was arrested on June 23 while photographing a notorious Tehran prison, was subjected to a 77-hour incarceration that included violent interrogations and died less than three weeks later in an Iranian hospital.

Last week, the case deteriorated into finger-pointing between officials in the reformist Intelligence Ministry and the hardline judiciary, with each side accusing the other of dealing the fatal blows.

A spokesman for Mr. Khatami said last week his government considered the "Intelligence Ministry clean and clear of any charges," while intelligence officials said they had provided Mr. Esmaeili with evidence proving the innocence of their employees, which he had ignored.

Observers fear Iran will find someone guilty of the murder simply to deflect international pressure.

Hamid Mojtahedi, a Toronto-based lawyer who is in Iran observing the case, told the National Post last week the two women were scapegoats. "I suspect that these people were not involved in any defining moment that culminated in Ms. Kazemi's unfortunate death," he said.

Ottawa has pushed for the right to participate in the judicial proceedings in hopes Canadian investigators will be able to get to the truth, but Mr. Graham has thus far refused to break diplomatic relations or invoke other sanctions.

Canada's sole act of official protest has been to recall its ambassador to Iran, Philip MacKinnon, although Mr. Graham suggested last week that the government would consider taking more aggressive action if it felt the Iranians were stonewalling.

"I would say next week, if we're still being stalled on the report, we'll examine then what we should be doing," he said.

Ottawa has asked the UN Human Rights Commission to take up the Kazemi case, and is considering the possibility of collaborating with European countries to bring a broader resolution on human rights in Iran before the UN General Assembly.

Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary-General, has reportedly said he was "highly concerned" about the circumstances surrounding Ms. Kazemi's death.

A Montreal art gallery last week opened an exhibition of Ms. Kazemi's work. Part of its proceeds will fund Mr. Hachemi's effort to have his mother's body returned to Canada. It was buried in Iran against his wishes.

Lawsuit Against the Islamic Regime of Iran for "Crimes against Humanity"

September 02, 2003 Iran va Jahan MEHR Iran

On September 2, 2003, MEHR Iran will sponsor its 2nd conference in Remembrance of the Massacre of Thousands of Prisoners of Conscience by the Islamic Regime of Iran in summer of 1988. Based on MEHRs proposal, Amnesty International recognized September 1st as the universal memorial day for massacre victims during its 2003 General Meeting.

Fifteen years have passed since the Islamic regime of Iran brutally killed thousands of political prisoners so that it could continue its mediaeval despotic rule. MEHR is pleased to announce that on the fifteenth anniversary of this horrible day and after six years of hard work it has finally filed a law suite against the Islamic regime of Iran through the Center for Justice and Accountability.

This event is organized to inform the world community of this horrific crime, a crime that has been ignored for so many years. The objective of the conference is to unveil the crimes of the Islamic Regime, which is responsible for these and many other murderous acts. This conference will also emphasize the importance of seeking justice for the victims through international avenues.

In addition, this conference hopes to appeal to the freedom loving people of the world to help us stop the interest-driven Western governments from supporting the Islamic Regime.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.